tvc184

Is there a way? Sure. Why would we? It hasn’t gotten out of hand as far as I can see and it’s just speculation of a who might be the next coach, with some humor thrown in

I thought they only had the right to exist on my dinner plate…..

I have long suspected that of traffic cameras…… I have had contact with a few and some of them are just throwed off.

We might need to see if we can get together a road trip. Hippy, Bullets13; Hagar, Big Girl, InMAGAwetrust, Unwoke…….

And that’s trying to adequately explain a relatively short and easy to understand law…….

This is not legal advice but just telling you what I think the law says after almost 38 years in the business and being to probably over 150 homicide scenes. To use deadly force to protect property only from a theft, there are two requirements. 1. it has to be in the nighttime. AND 2. You had a reasonable belief that the property could not be recovered by other means OR trying to stop the person would expose you to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death. The same requirements apply to recovering property that was taken in a burglary, robbery or aggravated robbery except…… The difference is that those do not require to be taken place in the nighttime. The way I read that law says that for example you come home during the daylight and you found your home has been broken into. The person is still there and runs away and you can see that he has your wife’s purse in his hand. Again, if there is a reasonable belief that the property would not be recovered (in my opinion meaning that he gets away) or that trying to stop him with less the deadly force would expose you to a substantial risk of serious injury or death, then deadly force would be lawful. Entering your home unlawfully to steal something is a burglary. Now let’s say the exact same situation during the day but this time your wife left her purse on the porch. No entry was gained so it was just a theft and not a burglary. A daytime theft does not authorize deadly force in any situation. if that was true then a store owner could shoot a shoplifter running out with a pack of gum. So the only difference between these two situations is that the guy went into your home to steal a purse or he stayed outside and stole the same item. One might be seen as justified and the other might get your life in prison. If a person has not displayed a weapon and you cannot see something that may be a weapon on him such as a handgun under a shirt, you might have a hard time claiming that the person posed a substantial risk to you. We can play what if with different scenarios such as he looked like a high school linebacker and a guy like me who 66 years old and overweight might be no match for him. That might bring a reasonable belief that he would be a substantial risk of seriously injuring me. If it is a guy that appears to be unarmed, is elderly and limps, it might be hard to say that he was a serious risk or going to get away. So it depends on the situation at hand. Is the person getting away with property a substantial risk or is it likely the person will get away with the property? If the answer is yes, then deadly force is likely lawful under Texas law… assuming it is nighttime or to stop a burglary or robbery. Using the case of an aggravated robbery as an example (and again not legal advice), a guy pulls a gun or knife on you and takes your wallet and turns his back and runs. The questions become, are you trying to recover property? Yes if he still has your property. If he throws it down then they use of deadly force is not lawful as you are no longer trying to get your property back. If the answer is yes he still has it, would it expose you to the substantial risk of serious injury or death? I would say that the mere fact that he has a knife or a gun and just pulled it on you makes irt clear in my opinion that he poses a substantial risk and therefore deadly force is authorized. This is the actual law… Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. What I can tell you about reading a law is, pay attention to “and” and “or”. If you say the word “and”, then everything previous to that is required. If you see the word “or”, each part of the sentence or section of the law stands alone. So if a law says (a), (b) AND (c) then all 3 are required. If a law says (a), (b) OR (c) then each stands alone. Examples from above.: (2)(A) above does not require (B). It says to prevent the crimes listed under (A) … OR… (B) to prevent escape. If one of those situations exists (only one is required since it says “or”), then you are required to also refer to (3) because after (2) it says “and” (3). So…. For deadly force to be legal to protect property you must meet the requirements in (2)(A) or (2)(B) and the requirements in (3)(A) or (3)(B). So here’s the legal options if these situations exist in my opinion…. (2)(A) + (3)(A) (2)(A) + (3)(B) (2)(B) + (3)(A) (2)(B) + (3)(B) This law says (2) and (3) are required to use deadly force to protect property. Both have an (A) or (B) option. It also says (1) is required but that requires you had a lawful right to the property, the other person had no lawful right to the property and the use of force one “immediately necessary”. I hate to be that long winded and it’s really not that difficult but you have to read it exactly as it is written. Reading or understanding only part of it May lead to a bad understanding and consequences. And I almost forgot, back to your question. If a guy is driving away with your truck can you use deadly force? Let’s apply that law. If it is just stolen property and it is daylight, then the answer in my opinion is no. if it is the nighttime then you have met one element. Then it goes to, is the guy likely to get away or will expose you to a substantial risk of death or serious injury. Without going any further into it my inclamation and say yes, if you try to stop a guy driving away in a vehicle it would expose you to serious injury or death and he is also likely to get away. To go just a tad further, what if he pulled a gun on someone in order to steal the vehicle?. That would become an aggravated robbery and I think the production of the weapon would make a deadly force in such a situation lawful. Even further, you see a guy trying to hotwire your truck and you are outside to stop him. He does not display a weapon but tells you if you come closer he will kill you. That likely just became a robbery with the threat of death during a theft and like the law stated above, you could use deadly force to stop a burglary, robbery or aggravated robbery or theft in the nighttime. Whew!!!

The law is not subjective and is clear. Human opinion is absolutely subjective. This was difficult because we really don’t know what happened. “What if” can give a lot of scenarios.

Generally in Texas it is lawful to use force but not deadly force to protect property. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding of the words “force”. A law might say a person can use the force necessary. That is different than deadly force necessary. There are extremely limited reasons to lawfully use deadly force to protect property but they do exist. The nighttime criminal mischief is many times overstated in my opinion. Deadly force is not legal to stop criminal mischief unless “property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means”. (Quoting Texas law) If a person uses deadly force to stop teenagers from throwing toilet paper, that is probably murder. If a person is breaking your windshield wiper, there had better be a high risk of you getting killed by trying to stop him or again, it is probably murder. The law doesn’t talk about speculation either. It goes by what is known to the person at the time who is using the force. For example at 12 year old kid “could” have a pistol and “might” kill you. If 12 your kid is throwing confetti in your yard, you cannot shoot him and say well I thought he might have a pistol. If he produces the pistol, that isa different issue. If you’re 5 foot 110 pound woman and there’s a 6’2” 220 pound man doing something, that might be a reasonable belief. So far protection of property either from theft or criminal mischief the first requirement is it be during the night. The second requirement to make deadly force lawful is that there were not other reasonably means to stop theft or criminal mischief. If you could just yell at someone and scare them away, and that is what is “necessary”. Remember that when a person uses deadly force, that person might be in front of a jury trying to explain why he killed someone in the nighttime for throwing eggs.

Just give me your money……

There is obviously some kind of mental illness going on within the group. “White supremacist” seems to be the answer to any question that comes up. Is like some form of Tourette’s or OCD. Why does a Beaumont city councilman want to bring the Battleship Texas to Beaumont? White supremacy. Why does a substantial percentage of Americans not want to take the Covid vaccine? White supremacy. Why are Bidens poll numbers some of the lowest in history? White supremacy. Why did the Cowboys have about five penalties in the game that kept them from beating San Francisco? White supremacy. And so it goes…

The FBI now says that it is not only a terror attack but was targeting the Jewish community. It only took about 48 hours for what some people claim is the preeminent law-enforcement agency in this country, to figure out what everybody else took about 30 seconds to figure out. I completely understand that you don’t know something until you investigate it thoroughly. With the original statement that there is nothing to indicate the Jewish community was targeted seems rather disingenuous. If they did not want to commit out of political correctness, a better statement would seem to have been, we don’t know yet but it appears to have targeted the Jewish community.

Really just which way the thread will go…..

Watch what happens if it’s not the coach that “the community wants”. It will be another 23 pages of…….

It is likely a cover-up for the administration. I don’t blame administration one bit for this radicalize nut case. No matter who the president was, he would have done what he did. For political purposes however, they don’t want the current administration to look bad because obviously some people will blame them. They also don’t want anyone to think there are issues that threaten the national requiring a response.

I have spent some time studying this subject and I can say with 100% certainty, every head football coach at any level, never held a head coaching position before he was selected the first time.

Which is the intent of the United States Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights. A majority (pure democracy) should not be able to take away your right to an Attorney, your right to remain silent, your right to free speech, etc. Like the saying goes… Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

I took it as a routine investigation. I mean that when someone is killed, there is always investigation to see what happened, it might be on video with 20 witnesses but you can’t just walk away and say it was justified. Also in a case like this they want to find if anyone else is involved. He does not even have to be a terror attack but just a local crime. It can be a felony for three people to discuss a felony and then at least one person do some overt act to further the crime that is how a conspiracy is made. My best friend at work shot and killed a guy one day while on duty. It was on two different cameras from two different angles they were very clear with audio. Basically a private citizen could have walked up, watched the videos and in three minutes proclaimed the officer not guilty. It was that obvious but… there had to be a thorough independent investigation and a grand jury review to see what would take a couple of minutes to determine. I have no problem with that because to do otherwise would be claimed to be a cover-up. That is how I look at this case. They obviously want to know if there’s someone else out there with help this man first because he would be helping a terrorist and part of the crime and secondly they might be plotting something else. They also want to review the police actions to make sure of what happened. EDIT: So I guess I agree with you, they are looking at it to see if it is justified but that is always. It’s not because this is a special case or that they doubt the officer(s).

Accomplices?

Trump rally in Conroe on January 29…….

The funniest jokes are based on the truth. This is absolutely based on the truth. When they add “just”….. Bend over and get ready….

WAIT, this is not open for a public vote by people who don’t live in the district? There is always something new to learn……

This ruling just overturned the stay issued by the Sixth Circuit. It stops the mandate immediately however, I believe this sends it back to the circuit court for a full hearing and ruling and not just a stay. Remember that the circuit court did not hear a full case in court, they just issued a temporary order overturning the Fifth Circuit rule to the contrary. If the circuit court in Ohio upholds the OSHA mandate, the Supreme Court will likely then grant review (certiorari) and issue a final ruling. In that case there will be a final decision that the OSHA mandate was unlawful. If the Sixth Circuit overturns The mandate at that level, it will probably end as unlawful because the Supreme Court within deny review and let the lower court order stand. There are two ways in effect that the Supreme Court can make a ruling. One is to hear a case and then come to a decision. The other is to simply refuse to hear the case. In that situation whatever happened previously, stands. If the Supreme Court does not grant review of the lower court case ruling, it basically agrees that there is no point in hearing the case.

The United States Supreme Court just struck down the OSHA vaccine mandate.

It is not that the other side “would” have done the same. The other side “did” do the same. The Republicans did nothing until the Democrats removed the filibuster to get federal judges approved. They were warned by McConnell, if they change the rules, it would come back to haunt them. The Democrats changed the rules but later did not like the result. They assumed that Hillary would win and then it would be no problem.

I am sure the Facebook fact checkers came in and declared her as putting out false information.….